Discussion on 'Why do people continue to be devoted to their religions ...?'

(3) On August 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm Emdrgreg [882] said:

There are some very well formed thoughts and opinions on the answer page, and I am hesitant to add more material with the resulting appearance of 'debate' that almost universally characterizes "faith and spirituality" questions. Some observations can be made, however, about a number of assumptions that are often made. And we can be clear from the very beginning that one result of our sojourn in the flesh is that we CANNOT open our mouths to speak, no matter who we are, without coming from a basis of several assumptions. Assumptions are not harmful; being unwilling to admit them probably is. Religionists' claims to the contrary notwithstanding, all matters of religion and faith are, after all, assumptions that some individuals choose somehow to make, even as dis-belief in God or disdain for religion in general come from a different set of assumptions. Nobody has a corner on the assumption market, or an inherent right to claim superiority of one set of assumptions over another. Following is part of my response to another question, and there might be some ideas here that can cool the latent contention that always seems to exist to one extent or another around these faith/science questions.

There are a few people in the world who are truly brilliant. Among them are non-religious scientists, and scientists who are believers as well. There are some bone-headed, intellectually mediocre, self-serving and deceitful people, scientists and non-scientists, believers and non-believers among them. Frankly, the dividing lines between these groups can blur. It matters little. Not every brilliant advancement in knowledge is given to us by brilliant atheist PhD's, and more than a few have been made by deeply faithful people.

The challenge for scientists and people in general who are not faith-based is to listen objectively to clear-thinking people of faith when they make legitimate claims that current theories do not match well with the observed data, possibly requiring a re-thinking of standard models. No scientist should ever conclude: "That [scientifically approachable proposal] is being offered by a creationist and so it is not worth study."It should be of no concern to scientists that people of faith will take a different approach to old questions, and that they will consider their knowledge superior to science.

The challenge for people of faith is to look fearlessly at the verifiable data and to remember that ultimately (from their point of view) no correctly derived and honestly reported evidence can ever successfully refute or disprove creation, even if some of the evidence may lead to a re-working of how science is done. As Grissom always says: "What is the evidence telling you?" No informed creationist should ever conclude: "That evidence must be wrong, and the reason it must be dismissed is because I believe there is a creator."

The only reason to dismiss scientific evidence is because it is demonstrated to be improperly gathered/reported, or refuted by more reliable information to which it can be reasonably compared. Faith-based convictions belong to the realm of faith, and believers should have no argument with people who are exploring other avenues knowing that faith will (from their point of view) inevitably and completely win the day.

Science is a heuristic, a useful problem solving system. No heuristic is independently verifiable, but continues to be used only as it produces useful results. All scientists, independent of faith, approach their work with a set of assumptions. Some scientists are working on deeply held convictions (assumptions) that the natural world will provide all the answers we will ever need regarding natural physical reality. Other scientists are starting from the faith position (an assumption, after all) that the natural world could not have come about without creative agency. However, it seems that nothing should stand in the way of simply doing science, whatever you believe. If we are thinking clearly the important questions will be: "What is the evidence telling you?" Followed by: "What can we do to help us determine the truth or falsity of the current interpretation? No competent scientist and no person living his/her faith and seeking truth fears these questions.

(2) On August 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm Emdrgreg [882] said:

The above said, it is necessary to clarify that people are idiots. Yes, every last one. [Perhaps I can be forgiven for excluding myself. Read carefully; I'm being hypnotic, not arrogant]. Idiocy cuts across all IQ's, all professions, all levels of belief and unbelief, all nationalities, all philosophies and religions. Most people are reasonably open to various ideas in youth, and become more and more brittle and less receptive as the years go by. [I see that, but of course it doesn't describe ME.] Scientists who have devoted a lifetime of research and scholarship might have a VERY hard time when some young upstarts arrive on the scene with a shiny new brilliant and completely unexpected approach which essentially nullifies a 40-year reputation as a leader in a given field. This is a function of simple humanness, and not a characteristic of the person's profession. The scenario can be applied to absolutely anyone, and to any of a person's beliefs. The more deeply held, the more entertaining the drama.

Human drama is NOT the substance of religious practice or faithful spiritual life, and it is NOT the substance of scientific inquiry, even if some preachers and scientists, exhalted as they can become, actually prove to be human. People can be opinionated, arrogant, hooked on the adrenalin rush of fighting, debate and contention, sometimes deceitful, prone to serious lapses of logic and judgement, and still be basically ok people at the same time. [Of course, I'm OK; it's the You're OK part that gives me pause...]

It does not advance the faith/science discussion to bring in these human elements, elements that inflict and infect us all. The simple truth is that religion/faith and science are different disciplines.

Religion is a specific set of practices designed to deepen spiritual awareness, and heighten a sense of presence and worship. These practices usually support a set of beliefs taken in faith, and presumably shared by those practicing the religion. Faith itself is the substance (confidence) of things hoped for and the evidence (being certain) of things unseen. Believers who spend too much time dwelling on everything that's wrong with scientists are missing one or two crucial points. One missed point is that for people of faith to grasp after 'scientific' legitimacy is, in one stroke, to deny the nature and efficacy of faith, and also to insist that religion and faith must be accorded the same esteem. This should be the very last thing that people of faith should desire.

Science, as a heuristic, is doomed to forever aid scientists as they ask how a certain thing occurs, or what the implications are for further research. Any scientists who fall into the [all too human] trap of dogmatic scientific pronoucements are crossing a line that ought not be crossed. The very thing that some people of faith accuse science of, dogmatic pronouncements about theories, is the very antithesis of science as a process. Philosophers of science can argue powerfully that no scientific theory can ever actually be proven, and this is both frustrating and terribly exciting. For various reasons, even the Theory of Everything [the current craze] may not be Everything that some people hope for. There is no good reason why people of faith should be going out of their way to be associated in any way with this never-ending science.

In the long run, God will never be proven (people of faith should pray that this be true) or disproven. Scientists will never come to a place where any theory can be considered absolutely true. But the world will continue to advance, knowledge will increase, we will approach new depths of spirit, and we will find a way to pepper the universe with life. And untold ages hence, well meaning people of every possible persuasion will be arguing these same things and coming to no conclusion other than this: The dispute is not between faith and science. It is between some people of faith, and some scientists.

(1) On June 14, 2008 at 09:51 am Now Here [5] said:

Why do people continue to be devoted to their sciences in this age of spirituality and consciousness?

Sign in to add your own comment. (This only takes a few seconds.)